Pots and Kettles and Dark Hues

The recent brouhaha over the war in Iraq has drawn Bush and his gang out of its shell of silence. Cheney has recently stepped into the fight:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday lashed out at Democrats who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, saying such critics were spreading “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired” in Washington.

Cheney also suggested that the Democratic attacks could undermine troop morale.

“The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out,” Cheney said in a speech in Washington to a conservative think tank.

“American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures . . . and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie,” Cheney said. (L.A. Times)

In a sense, he has a point. If the administration did indeed admit to “selectively choosing” intelligence so as to make the war a little more attractive, would the average soldier be inclined to go back out, day after day risking his/her life? Probably not. In other words, troop morale would be affected were the charges admitted (and I’m not even saying here they’re true).

But Cheney’s claim that merely _suggesting_ it, his claim that asking tough questions about the origins of the war affects troop morale, is absurd. It amounts to using the soldiers’ daily risks for political gain – a way of stifling the critics. Not the race card, but the soldier card.

And then he calls Democrats “opportunists.”

But what choice do they have?

After all, a little honesty can go a long way. So it’s better, in the end, I suppose, to shut up and die for a lie, knowing that its for the greater good, because now that we’re involved we can’t withdraw, even though our involvement was finagled by intelligence massaging…

It’s all more convoluted than that attempt at a grammatically based illustration.

If the Bush administration has nothing to hide in this matter, why is it historically tight-lipped about everything? Why is it swinging away with such panic blows?

2 thoughts on “Pots and Kettles and Dark Hues

  1. You could say that there are things that are either backed with evidence or not said at all. Eg. you don’t tell your wife that you think she may be an adulteress. Either she is or you remain silent.
    In war time that would mean that you either have enough to act on, meaning withdrawl or impeachment, or you do nothing. This is a bit problematic as this president cannot be reelected anyway, so it would go unpunished.
    Furthermore, it is quite likely that there is more than one working strategy, but that any compromise between such strategies would fail, so there must not be a weak government. It must be strong or fall, but nothing between.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *